CHAPTER I.

THE STORM BREWING.

IN the merry month of May, 1881, I started a paper called the
Freethinker, with the avowed object of waging "relentless
war against Superstition in general and the Christian Superstition
in particular." I stated in the first paragraph of the first number
that this new journal would have a new policy; that it would "do
its best to employ the resources of Science, Scholarship,
Philosophy and Ethics against the claims of the Bible as a Divine
Revelation," and that it would "not scruple to employ for the same
purpose any weapons of ridicule or sarcasm that might be borrowed
from the armoury of Common Sense."

As the Freethinker was published at the people's price of
a penny, and was always edited in a lively style, with a few short
articles and plenty of racy paragraphs, it succeeded from the
first; and becoming well known, not through profuse advertisement,
but through the recommendation of its readers, its circulation
increased every week. Within a year of its birth it had
outdistanced all its predecessors. No Freethought journal ever
progressed with such amazing rapidity. True, this was largely due
to the fact that the Freethought party had immensely increased in
numbers; but much of it was also due to the policy of the paper,
which supplied, as the advertising gentry say, "a long-felt want."
Although the first clause of its original programme was never
wholly forgotten, we gradually paid the greatest attention to the
second, indulging more and more in Ridicule and Sarcasm, and more
and more cultivating Common Sense. A dangerous policy, as I was
sometimes warned; but for that very reason all the more necessary.
The more Bigotry writhed and raged, the more I felt that our policy
was telling. Borrowing a metaphor from Carlyle's "Frederick," I
likened Superstition to the boa, which defies all ponderous
assaults, and will not yield to the pounding of sledge-hammers, but
sinks dead when some expert thrusts in a needle's point and
punctures the spinal column.

I had a further incentive. Mr. Bradlaugh's infamous treatment by
the bigots had revolutionised my ideas of Freethought policy.
Although never timid, I was until then practically ignorant of the
horrible spirit of persecution; and with the generous enthusiasm of
youth I fondly imagined that the period of combat was ended, that
the liberty of platform and press was finally won, that
Supernaturalism was hopelessly scotched although obviously not
slain, and that Freethinkers should now devote themselves to
cultivating the fields they had won instead of raiding into the
enemy's territory. Alas for the illusions of hope! They were rudely
dispelled by a few "scenes" in the House of Commons, and barred
from all chance of re-gathering by the wild display of intolerance
outside. I saw, in quite another sense than Garth Wilkinson's, the
profound truth of his saying that --

"The Duke of Wellington's advice, Do not make a little
war, is applicable to internal conflicts against evil in society.
For little wars have no background of resources, they do not know
the strength of the enemy, and the peace that follows them for the
most part leaves the evil in dispute nearly its whole territory;
perhaps is purchased by guaranteeing the evil by treaty; and leaves
the case of offence more difficult of attack by reason of
concession to wrong premises." ("Human Science and Divine
Revelation," Preface, p. vi.)

Yes, the war with Superstition must be fought à
outrance. We must decline either treaty or truce. I hold that
the one great work of our time is the destruction of theology, the
immemorial enemy of mankind, which has wasted in the chase of
chimeras very much of the world's best intellect, fatally perverted
our moral sentiments, fomented discord and division, supported all
the tyranny of privilege and sanctioned all debasement of the
people. Far be it from me to argue this point with any dissident. I
prefer to leave him to the logic of events, which has convinced me,
and may some day convince him.

But to recur. Before the Freethinker had reached its
third number I began to reflect on the advisability of illustrating
it, and bringing in the artist's pencil to aid the writer's pen. I
soon resolved to do this, and the third and fourth numbers
contained a woodcut on the front page. In the fifth number there
appeared an exquisite little burlesque sketch of the Calling of
Samuel, by a skilful artist whose name I cannot disclose. Although
not ostensibly, it was actually, the first of those Comic Bible
Sketches for which the Freethinker afterwards became famous;
and from that date, with the exception of occasional intervals due
to difficulties there is no need to explain, my little paper was
regularly illustrated. During the whole twelve months of my
imprisonment the illustrations were discontinued by my express
order. I was not averse to their appearing, but I knew the terrible
obstacles and dangers my temporary successor would have to meet,
and I left him a written prohibition of them, which he was free to
publish, in order to shield him against the possible charge of
cowardice. Since my release from prison they have been resumed, and
they will be continued until I go to prison again, unless I see
some better reason than Christian menace for their cessation.

The same fifth number of the Freethinker contained an
account of the first part of "La Bible Amusante," issued by the
Anti-Clerical publishing house in the Rue des Ecoles. That notice
was from my own pen, and I venture to reprint the opening
paragraphs.

"Voltaire's method of attacking Christianity has always
approved itself to French Freethinkers. They regard the statement
that he treated religious questions in a spirit of levity as the
weak defence of those who know that irony and sarcasm are the
deadliest enemies of their faith. Superstition dislikes argument,
but it hates laughter. Nimble and far-flashing wit is more potent
against error than the slow dull logic of the schools; and the
great humorists and wits of the world have done far more to clear
its head and sweeten its heart than all its sober philosophers from
Aristotle to Kant.

"We in England have Comic Histories, Comic Geographies, and
Comic Grammars, but a Comic Bible would horrify us. At sight of
such blasphemy Bumble would stand aghast, and Mrs. Grundy would
scream with terror. But Bumble and Mrs. Grundy are less important
personages in France, and so the country of Rabelais and Voltaire
produces what we are unable to tolerate in thought."

I concluded by saying -- "We shall introduce the subsequent
numbers to the attention of our readers, and, if possible, we shall
reproduce in the Freethinker some of the raciest plates. We
shall be greeted with shrieks of pious wrath if we do so, but we
are not easily frightened."

There was really more than editorial fashion in this "we," for
at that time Mr. Ramsey was half proprietor of the
Freethinker, and his consent had of course to be obtained
before I could undertake such a dangerous enterprise. I gladly avow
that he showed no hesitation; on the contrary, he heartily fell in
with the project. He frankly left the editorial conduct of our
paper in my hands, despised the accusation of Blasphemy, and defied
its law. His half-proprietorship of the Freethinker has
terminated, but we still work together in our several ways for the
cause of Freethought. Mr. Ramsey went with me into the furnace of
persecution, and he bore his sufferings with manly fortitude.

The Freethinker steadily progressed in circulation, and
in January, 1882, I was able to secure the services of my old
friend, Joseph Mazzini Wheeler, as sub-editor. He had for long
years contributed gratuitously to my literary ventures, and those
who ever turn over a file of the Secularist or the
Liberal will see with what activity he wielded his trenchant
pen. When he became my paid sub-editor, our relations remained
unchanged. We worked as loyal colleagues for a cause we both loved,
and treated as a mere accident the fact of my being his principal.
The same feeling animates us still, nor do I think it can ever
suffer alteration.

The new year's number, dated January 1, 1882, referred to Mr.
Wheeler's accession, and to that of Dr. Edward Aveling, who then
became a member of the regular staff. It also referred to the
policy of the Freethinker, and to another subject of the
gravest interest -- namely, the threats of prosecution which had
appeared in several Christian journals. As "pieces of
justification," to use a French phrase, I quote these two passages:

"Our ill-wishers (what journal has none?) have been of
two kinds. In the first place, the Christians, disgusted with our
"blasphemy," predicted a speedy failure. The wish was father to the
thought. These latter-day prophets were just as false as their
predecessors. Now that they witness our indisputable success, they
shake their heads, look at us askance, mutter something like
curses, and pray the Lord to turn us from our evil ways. One or two
bigots, more than ordinarily foolish, have threatened to suppress
us with the strong arm of the law. We defy them to do their worst.
We have no wish to play the martyr, but we should not object to
take a part in dragging the monster of persecution into the light
of day, even at the cost of some bites and scratches. As the
Freethinker was intended to be a fighting organ, the savage
hostility of the enemy is its best praise. We mean to incur their
hatred more and more. The war with superstition should be ruthless.
We ask no quarter and we shall give none.

"Secondly, we have had to encounter the dislike of mealy-mouthed
Freethinkers, who want omelettes without breaking of eggs and
revolutions without shedding of blood. They object to ridiculing
people who say that twice two are five. They even resent a dogmatic
statement that twice two are four. Perhaps they think four and a
half a very fair compromise. Now this is recreancy to truth, and
therefore to progress. No great cause was ever won by the
half-hearted. Let us be faithful to our convictions, and shun
paltering in a double sense. Truth, as Renan says, can dispense
with politeness; and while we shall never stoop to personal slander
or innuendo, we shall assail error without tenderness or mercy. And
if, as we believe, ridicule is the most potent weapon against
superstition, we shall not scruple to use it."

These extracts from my old manifestoes may possess little other
value, but they at least show this, that the peculiar policy of the
Freethinker was not adopted in a moment of levity, but was
from the first deliberately pursued; and that while I held on the
even tenor of my way, I was fully conscious of its dangers.

Early in January there fell into my hands a copy of a circular
to Members of Parliament by Henry Varley, the Notting Hill
revivalist. This person was a notorious trader in scandal, and he
still pursues that avocation. Many of his discourses are "delivered
to men only," an advertisement which is sure to attract a large
audience; and one of them, which he has published, is just on a
level with the quack publications that are thrust into young men's
hands in the street. Henry Varley had already issued one private
circular about Mr. Bradlaugh, full of the most brazen falsehoods
and the grossest defamation; and containing, as it did, garbled
extracts from Mr. Bradlaugh's writings, and artfully-manipulated
quotations from books he had never written or published, it
undoubtedly did him a serious injury. The new circular was worthy
of the author of the first. It was addressed "To the Members of the
House of Commons," and was "for private circulation only." The
indignant butcher, for that is his trade, wished "to submit to
their notice the horrible blasphemies that are appended, and quoted
from a new weekly publication issued from the office where Mr.
Bradlaugh's weekly journal, the National Reformer, is
published. The paper is entitled the Freethinker, and is
edited by G. W. Foote, one of Mr. Bradlaugh's prominent supporters,
and one of his right hand men at the Hall of Science." The Commons
of England were also requested to notice that "Dr. Aveling, who for
some years has been one of Mr. Bradlaugh's chief helpers, is
another contributor to this disgraceful product of Atheism." In
conclusion, they were called upon to "devise means to stay this
hideous prostitution of the liberty of the Press, by making these
shameless blasphemers amenable to the existing law."

It is a curious thing that such a fervid champion of religion
should always attack unbelievers with private circulars. Yet this
is the policy that Henry Varley has always pursued. He is a
religious bravo, who lurks in the dark, and strikes at Freethinkers
with a poisoned dagger. More than once he has flooded Northampton
with the foulest libels on Mr. Bradlaugh, invariably issued without
the printer's name, in open violation of the law. He is liable for
a fine of five pounds for every copy circulated, but the action
must be initiated by the Attorney-General, and our Christian
Government refuses to punish when the offence is committed by one
of their own creed, and the sufferer is only an Atheist.

Varley's circular served its evil purpose, for soon after
Parliament assembled in February, Mr. C. K. Freshfield, member for
Dover, asked the Home Secretary whether the Government intended to
prosecute the Freethinker.

Sir William Harcourt gave the following reply:

"I am sorry to say my attention has been called to a
paper bearing the title of the Freethinker, published in
Northampton, and I agree that nothing can be more pernicious to the
minds of right-thinking people than publications of that
description -- (cheers) -- but I think it has been the view for a
great many years of all persons responsible in these matters, that
more harm than advantage is produced to public morals by Government
prosecutions in cases of this kind. (Hear, hear). I believe they
are better left to the reprobation which they will meet in this
country from all decent members of society. (Cheers)."

This highly disingenuous answer was characteristic of the member
for Derby. His reference to the Freethinker as published at
Northampton, clearly proves that he had never seen it; and his
unctuous allusions to "public morals" and "decent members of
society" are further evidence in the same direction. The
Freethinker was accused of blasphemy, but until Sir William
Harcourt gave the cue not even its worst enemies charged it with
indecency. In a later stage of my narrative I shall have to show
that the "Liberal" Home Secretary has acted the part of an
unscrupulous bigot, utterly regardless of truth, justice and honor.

I thought it my duty to write an open letter to Sir William
Harcourt on the subject of his answer to Mr. Freshfield, in which I
said -- "I tell you that you could not suppress the
Freethinker if you tried. The martyr spirit of Freethought
is not dead, and the men who suffered imprisonment for liberty of
speech a generation ago have not left degenerate successors. Should
the necessity arise, there are Freethinkers who will not shrink
from the same sacrifice for the same cause." The sequel has shown
that this was no idle boast.

A few days later the Freethinker was again the subject of
a question in the House. Mr. Redmond, member for New Ross, asked
the Home Secretary "whether the Government had power to seize and
summarily suppress newspapers which they considered pernicious to
public morals; and, if so, why that power was not exercised in the
case of the Freethinker and other papers now published and
circulated in England." Sir William Harcourt repeated the answer he
gave to Mr. Freshfield, and added that it would not be discreet to
say whether the Government had power to seize obnoxious
publications.

Mr. Redmond's question was a fine piece of impudence. Assuming
that he represented all the voters in New Ross, his constituents
numbered two hundred and sixty-one; and they could all be conveyed
to Westminster in a tithe of the vehicles that brought people to
Holloway Gaol to welcome me on the morning of my release. The total
population of New Ross, including men, women and children, is less
than seven thousand; a number that fell far short of the readers of
the Freethinker even then. Representing a mere handful of
people, Mr. Redmond had the audacity to ask for the summary
suppression of a journal which is read in every part of the
English-speaking world.

Nothing further of an exciting nature in connexion with my case
occurred until early in May, when a prosecution for Blasphemy was
instituted at Tunbridge Wells against Mr. Henry Seymour, Honorary
Secretary of the local branch of the National Secular Society. This
Branch had been the object of continued outrage and persecution,
chiefly instigated, I have reason to believe, by Canon Hoare. The
printed announcements outside their meeting-place were frequently
painted over in presence of the police, who refused to interfere.
Finally the police called on all the local bill-posters and warned
them against exhibiting the Society's placards. Stung by these
disgraceful tactics, Mr. Seymour issued a jocular programme of an
evening's entertainment at the Society's hall, one profane sentence
of which, while it in no way disturbed the peace or serenity of the
town, aroused intense indignation in the breasts of the
professional guardians of religion and morality. They therefore
cited Mr. Seymour before the Justices of the Peace, and charged him
with publishing a blasphemous libel. He was committed for trial at
the next assizes, and in the meantime liberated on a hundred pounds
bail. Acting under advice, Mr. Seymour pleaded guilty, and was
discharged on finding sureties for his appearance when called up
for judgment. This grievous error was a distinct encouragement to
the bigots. Their appetite was whetted by this morsel, and they
immediately sought a full repast.

My own attitude was one of defiance. In the Freethinker
of May 14 I denounced the bigots as cowards for pouncing on a
comparatively obscure member of the Freethought party, and I
challenged them to attack its leaders before they assailed the rank
and file. This challenge was cited against me on my own trial, but
I do not regret it; and indeed I doubt if any man ever regretted
that his sense of duty triumphed over his sense of danger.